Cultural– and subsequently legal– parameters define responsibility for the sake of structure, but philosophically speaking I think the following argument can be made The Person who makes decision X that leads to failure Y or success Z, makes said decision because of all the influences impressed upon him from birth, from society and environment, that lead him to believe that decision X is the "best" decision from all given options at the time. Person decided X on their own, but every experience and interaction with every single thing ever encountered in Person's life is responsible collectively, because Person is a direct result of the combined impacts of all influences and interactions thereof. Legally, realistically, and especially socially, this argument cannot stand to reason because people expect direct, singular punishment on a single "responsible" person, based on their previously-defined liabilities. Saying "I didn't take ethanol, seeing my mom take ethanol when I was 8 made me do it" doesn't fly in court when you've hurt someone at age 20. Classic debate though, I'm curious who else throws something out there/argues this.
Personally, I enjoy your description, and agree with it mostly. A person is the sum of their environments effect on their genetics, essentially. The problem however, is that while you admit that Person decided X on their own, but every experience and interaction with every single thing ever encountered in Person's life is responsible collectively
you deny his agency. Personally I don't believe all that much in free will, but I think that it's necessary that a large part of laws be written as if we do.